Obama and the American Lefts: Part II

[NQ Note: We are pleased to present Part 2 of the essay by a brilliant political strategist who blogs under the name “Sam Copeland.” Sam is an expert in political persuasion and worked at the highest level of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Read Part I, published last evening.]

In my last post, I described the split in the Democratic Party between leftists and centrist All-American Liberals. Obama appealed to the leftists to be selected as the Democratic nominee. Hillary ran an honest campaign as a centrist liberal. Now that Obama has won the Presidency, he is adopting her positions and putting Clinonistas into prominent positions. If you are a Clintonista optimist, the glass is half full (at least Clintonians are in the government), but if you are a pessimist, the glass is half empty (why not Hillary?). And as I noted before, the engineer looks at the half-full/half-empty glass and asks, “Why does this glass have wasted capacity? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in charge?” To see the outline of the answer to that question, let’s return to the first term of Bill Clinton’s Presidency (if but only we could in real life).

Like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton came into the Presidency on a message of hope (the Man from Hope to be exact) and change. Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton was much more specific about the change he would bring – the centrist, All-American Liberal policies I described. When he implemented that change, he was met with opposition not only from the right but from the leftist-wing. For example, his tax cuts for lower income Americans and tax increases for the rich brought the scorn of the neo-cons. His changes to welfare were attacked by the leftists.

Both of these policies were economically sound (contributing to the Clinton economic miracle) and both were morally right. The rich should strive to match the patriotism of the poor and middle classes who send their sons and daughters to fight our wars. A life on welfare is not a psychologically healthy lifestyle.

The political environment of Bill Clinton and of Barack Obama is much different than the political environment of FDR and Truman. In those days, centrist All-American Liberalism reigned supreme. Neo-cons such as Joseph McCarthy and Douglas MacArthur and leftists such as Henry Wallace made lots of noise but were in decline. The second most popular political position was the moderate Republicanism of Dewey and Eisenhower (in many ways a “me-too” liberalism). All that has changed and political discourse is now dominated by neo-con and leftist rhetoric. The liberal’s natural ally, Moderate Republicanism, is a thing of the past. An All-American Liberal today is attacked by both the right and the left. Hillary Clinton was attacked by the likes of Ann Coulter and the adolescents at Daily Kos.

The answer to the engineer’s question: The reason for the wasted capacity is that anyone that champions All-American liberalism and the values of middle-class America will be attacked by the neo-con and leftist extremists that dominate today’s mass-mediated political discourse.

What will happen to Barack Obama if he adopts Clintonian policies? Quite simply: He should expect the same attacks that Bill and Hillary have gotten.
Currently, Obama has the support of the leftists although he is viewed skeptically by Clintonistas such as myself. How long will he keep this leftist support? Quite frankly, I am surprised that it hasn’t dawned on them already that the change we can believe in is the change in Obama’s policy positions. I thought the reappointment of Secretary of Defense Gates would do it. Needless to say, that was some pretty strong Kool-aid that Obama supporters swilled down during the primaries.

Nevertheless, leftist elites are starting to feel like they have been put out in the cold. Obama’s stimulus package is being attacked by those in Congress on the left (for the tax cuts) and those on the right (for the government spending programs). Sound familiar? As insightful and thorough as ever, LisaB has more details on leftists’ rumblings.

Ultimately, Obama’s political fate hinges on one issue: Can he revive the American economy enough in four years to earn re-election? To do that he needs the technical know-how to run the economy (and for this he is rightly turning to those who know Clinton economics) and the political skills both to keep the support of the American people and to maintain a ruling coalition in Congress.

Currently, Obama is receiving increasing support from the American people. This is typical after an election as citizens rally around their new leader. It should not be mistaken for support of Obama’s policies. He must earn that support.

In the primaries, Obama compared himself to Ronald Reagan who, in Obama’s eyes, created a new conservative movement. Obama, supposedly, was to create a similar political realignment for the left. The comparison falls short. Reagan won the 1980 election on the strength of his personality and on his political agenda, which he spelled out in detail in a series of radio broadcasts given in the late 1970s. Obama won the 2008 election on the strength of his personality and the failures of George W. Bush. He did not spell out his vision for America in the detail of Ronald Reagan, and thus there is no vision to rally a new liberal movement. He refuses to make a contrast between liberal and neo-con political philosophies (as Reagan did) and instead worships at the altar of a vague notion of bi-partisanism.

Without the vision-thing, Obama’s Presidency runs the risk of a rudderless ship much like the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. A vision and clear direction will allow Obama to suffer successfully the slings and arrows of attacks of the right and the left. It will buy him goodwill and understanding from the American people. Bill Clinton spelled out his vision for America, and it was one reason he remains a popular President.

The formula for maintaining a ruling coalition in Congress is simple: For every leftist Democrat Obama loses when he adopts a centrist liberal position, Obama must find someone on the right to replace that leftist. While straightforward, this is a daunting task because there are few if any moderate Republicans left in the world today. A move to the right is a pretty far jump.

With the current configuration of the Senate, Obama needs only one Republican vote to avoid a filibuster. One way Obama can get his policies through Congress is to pit one side against the other – leftist versus neo-con – and stake out the popular middle ground for himself. His pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol will come in handy when he needs to purchase those one or two Congressional votes to secure a win.

Will Obama be able to pull this political rabbit out of his hat? It remains to be seen, but I am reminded of what Bill Clinton said about George W. Bush just after showing him and Laura around the White House: “Underestimate Bush at your own peril.” Don’t underestimate the political skills of Barack Obama. He is a ruthless politician. The fact that our mainstream media don’t even perceive him to be a politician just makes my point.

In the current political environment, ruthlessness can be a good thing. Obama needs to be able to throw people under the bus if that is what is required to lead. But such ruthlessness has its cost. Unlike in the past where those discarded could be forgotten as Obama moved on, he is now at the top level and those he discards will have a tendency to hang around and quite possibly come back to haunt him.

Conclusion: Obama’s ability to navigate this political environment will determine not only the success of his Presidency and the prosperity of ours and others’ nations, but will also determine which left, if any, will rise to dominance on America’s political scene.